From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Jun 10 17:50:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 00:50:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 62257 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 00:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 00:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 00:50:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5B0oPs05798 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:50:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:50:24 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la ritcrd cusku di'e > > >The attitudinal placement idea solves the same problem IMO opinion, > >which is why I think it would be a fine way to go as well. > > Maybe it is, I haven't had time yet to look at how it would work > for more than the couple of examples presented. Would it apply > to {xu} as well, for example? In usage, when people want to ask about the truth of a bridi, they put xu in front. When they want to ask about the validity of a certain component of the bridi, they put xu right after it. This sounds quite like the new proposal to me. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!